Re: Vandeman applying Republican tactics to the environment

Edward Dolan said:

"Michael Halliwell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aDRcg.184273$7a.163938@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman said:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:23:08 GMT, "Jules Augley"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:tc9cg.14353$B42.4898@dukeread05...
>
>
>>Vandeman must be a closet Republican - After all, it is the Republicans
>>who usually subscribe to the notion "If You Say Something Often Enough
>>People Will Believe It To Be True"
>>
>>This same piece has been posted and refuted many times over the years.
>>If its raining outside, kill some time by reviewing Google Group search
>>"vandeman" "The Effects of Mountain Biking" - You will find many replies
>>and Vandeman's tactic responses to them. You will find Vandeman's
>>"science" reduced to the reality of name-calling, character assasination
>>and slander on his part towards anyone who questions his opinions.
>>Happy reading!
>
>Im well aware of Vandemans 'work' and website.
>
>As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
>substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>vegetation, in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and
>on three different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what, the
>results of his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between mountain
>biking and walking.

So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that
hikers vs. bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it
follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers,
since they travel several times as far! Idiot.

There

Mike, we've been over this before. Impact per foot is the same and you
appear to have no problem with that statement.

Granted, bikes do go further; however, you keep forgetting that hikers
have more impact in the areas they do travel due to their sheer
numbers....one cyclist going 2x or 3x as far has less impact than the 100
hikers out there for every mountain biker.

Most trails that hikers have a great impact on are rather short trails
located near popular trail heads and visitor centers. Once you get beyond
the first few miles, you are into true hiking country where there are few
hikers at which point there is very little impact on the trail. As usual,
Vandeman is right and Halliwell is wrong.

Funny...I'm seeing more and more hikers out trying to get away from the
"go for a walk in the woods with the kids" crowd and venturing further
and further out....more hikers = more damage.

Besides, have you seen what the day trippers are doing to the trail heads?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taken as a whole with total impacts of mountain biking vs hiking (and
taking into account the relative populations of participants in the
sport), then mountain biking does less *total* damage. Perhaps you should
be trying to get Ed to stay off his walking paths, hiking trails and
"sacred places?" There are a few good hiking related newsgroups out there
that I'm sure would be happy to hear from you.

The Great Ed Dolan mainly treks where few others venture to go. On many of
my hikes I can go for days without ever encountering anyone at all. When
that happens, I know I am in paradise.

Good for you...that puts you in a slightly different league than a vast
majority of the "hikers" out there.

Quoted message said:

Curtiss and his ilk want mountain bikes to be able to go everywhere,
desecrating and despoiling everything in their wake. They are soulless
creatures who know nothing of the sacred and have no notion of wilderness
and what it is good for. The out-of-doors is nothing but a playground to
them. They are the ultimate savages and not worthy of living in a civilized
society. In short, they belong in New Guinea or Borneo.

I see...you haven't read his stated goals...he (Mr. Curtiss) has stated
his aim is not to cycle *everywhere* and that there are areas he feels
should be protected (i.e. areas with wilderness designations). Besides
that, do you want to send mountain bikers to some of the almost
untouched areas of the south pacific? Sure, it would be a beautiiful
ride, but I thought you were into the protection of wilderness thing,
not the "ship the mountain bikers off to ride elsewhere" thing (in less
developed areas, at that!)

Michael Halliwell

"Michael Halliwell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:V2adg.186610$7a.47709@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

"Michael Halliwell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:aDRcg.184273$7a.163938@pd7tw1no...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:23:08 GMT, "Jules Augley"
><[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"S Curtiss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:tc9cg.14353$B42.4898@dukeread05...
>>
>>
>>>Vandeman must be a closet Republican - After all, it is the
>>>Republicans who usually subscribe to the notion "If You Say Something
>>>Often Enough People Will Believe It To Be True"
>>>
>>>This same piece has been posted and refuted many times over the years.
>>>If its raining outside, kill some time by reviewing Google Group
>>>search "vandeman" "The Effects of Mountain Biking" - You will find
>>>many replies and Vandeman's tactic responses to them. You will find
>>>Vandeman's "science" reduced to the reality of name-calling, character
>>>assasination and slander on his part towards anyone who questions his
>>>opinions.
>>>Happy reading!
>>
>>Im well aware of Vandemans 'work' and website.
>>
>>As for calling my bluff, once the project has been marked I can post
>>substantial pieces of the report. But for now, he conducted and
>>experiment in a regional park in Scotland. The experiment consisted of
>>measuring impacts caused by both mountain bikers and walkers on
>>vegetation, in two different habitat types (woodland and grassland) and
>>on three different gradients (downhill, uphill and flat). Guess what,
>>the results of his ANOVA showed NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between
>>mountain biking and walking.
>
>
>So, in other words, he made the same error in logic that all other
>"researchers" did: ignoring the grossly different DISTANCES that
>hikers vs. bikers travel. Since he only measured impact PER FOOT, it
>follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers,
>since they travel several times as far! Idiot.
>
> There

Mike, we've been over this before. Impact per foot is the same and you
appear to have no problem with that statement.

Granted, bikes do go further; however, you keep forgetting that hikers
have more impact in the areas they do travel due to their sheer
numbers....one cyclist going 2x or 3x as far has less impact than the 100
hikers out there for every mountain biker.

Most trails that hikers have a great impact on are rather short trails
located near popular trail heads and visitor centers. Once you get beyond
the first few miles, you are into true hiking country where there are few
hikers at which point there is very little impact on the trail. As usual,
Vandeman is right and Halliwell is wrong.

Funny...I'm seeing more and more hikers out trying to get away from the
"go for a walk in the woods with the kids" crowd and venturing further and
further out....more hikers = more damage.

Besides, have you seen what the day trippers are doing to the trail heads?

I have already admitted that hikers can be as slovenly as bikers.
Enforcement of the rules and regulations is the answer. I do fault the
rangers for not being strict enough. Some stiff fines would solve a lot of
the problems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Taken as a whole with total impacts of mountain biking vs hiking (and
taking into account the relative populations of participants in the
sport), then mountain biking does less *total* damage. Perhaps you
should be trying to get Ed to stay off his walking paths, hiking trails
and "sacred places?" There are a few good hiking related newsgroups out
there that I'm sure would be happy to hear from you.

The Great Ed Dolan mainly treks where few others venture to go. On many
of my hikes I can go for days without ever encountering anyone at all.
When that happens, I know I am in paradise.

Good for you...that puts you in a slightly different league than a vast
majority of the "hikers" out there.

I once went hiking in the central Idaho wilderness (Bob Marshall) and scared
myself half to death. It goes on forever and there is never anyone in that
area. I think it is mainly set up for equestrians as I never saw another
hiker for the entire week I was there. Hells Bells, I didn't even see any
equestrians.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Curtiss and his ilk want mountain bikes to be able to go everywhere,
desecrating and despoiling everything in their wake. They are soulless
creatures who know nothing of the sacred and have no notion of wilderness
and what it is good for. The out-of-doors is nothing but a playground to
them. They are the ultimate savages and not worthy of living in a
civilized society. In short, they belong in New Guinea or Borneo.

I see...you haven't read his stated goals...he (Mr. Curtiss) has stated
his aim is not to cycle *everywhere* and that there are areas he feels
should be protected (i.e. areas with wilderness designations). Besides
that, do you want to send mountain bikers to some of the almost untouched
areas of the south pacific? Sure, it would be a beautiiful ride, but I
thought you were into the protection of wilderness thing, not the "ship
the mountain bikers off to ride elsewhere" thing (in less developed areas,
at that!)

Yes, I am aware of where Curtiss is at, but it is just too much fun to kid
him. Besides, I do not like the way all of you gang up on Vandeman. He is
purist admittedly, but we need his type to remind us of what would be ideal
in a perfect world.

I would just like mountain bikers to stay on some kind of road as opposed to
any kind of trail. Here in the Upper Midwest there are literally thousands
of miles of gravel roads. The Black Hills of South Dakota is like this too.
It just seems to me that there is hardly ever any reason for mountain bikes
to be on hiking trails when there are so many unpaved roads for them to be
on.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan said:

Yes, I am aware of where Curtiss is at, but it is just too much fun to kid
him. Besides, I do not like the way all of you gang up on Vandeman. He is
purist admittedly, but we need his type to remind us of what would be ideal
in a perfect world.

I don't fault Mike for being an idealist or purist....but rather his
"science." If he wants to claim that the science supports him, he needs
to be solidly scientific...more so than those he is trying to "debunk."
Not answering a legitimate question (esp. those of a scientific
nature) or resorting to snubs ("Liar", "Did you say something" and so
forth) or personal attacks does not support his case.

Given the way he comes across, it is not the least bit surprising that
he has drawn a number of people to dispute his posts. The "ganging up"
has as much to do with his posts as it does the responses.

Quoted message said:

I would just like mountain bikers to stay on some kind of road as opposed to
any kind of trail. Here in the Upper Midwest there are literally thousands
of miles of gravel roads. The Black Hills of South Dakota is like this too.
It just seems to me that there is hardly ever any reason for mountain bikes
to be on hiking trails when there are so many unpaved roads for them to be
on.

Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.

Michael Halliwell

Michael Halliwell said:

Edward Dolan said:

Yes, I am aware of where Curtiss is at, but it is just too much fun to kid
him. Besides, I do not like the way all of you gang up on Vandeman. He is
purist admittedly, but we need his type to remind us of what would be ideal
in a perfect world.

I don't fault Mike for being an idealist or purist....but rather his
"science." If he wants to claim that the science supports him, he needs
to be solidly scientific...more so than those he is trying to "debunk."
Not answering a legitimate question (esp. those of a scientific
nature) or resorting to snubs ("Liar", "Did you say something" and so
forth) or personal attacks does not support his case.

Given the way he comes across, it is not the least bit surprising that
he has drawn a number of people to dispute his posts. The "ganging up"
has as much to do with his posts as it does the responses.

BS. Mountain bikers gang up on ANYONE who tells the truth about their
selfish, destructive sport. If you were interested in science, you
would address the science, instead of my image. You AREN'T!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would just like mountain bikers to stay on some kind of road as opposed to
any kind of trail. Here in the Upper Midwest there are literally thousands
of miles of gravel roads. The Black Hills of South Dakota is like this too.
It just seems to me that there is hardly ever any reason for mountain bikes
to be on hiking trails when there are so many unpaved roads for them to be
on.

Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.

That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.

Quoted message said:

Michael Halliwell

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman said:

Michael Halliwell said:

Edward Dolan said:

Yes, I am aware of where Curtiss is at, but it is just too much fun to kid
him. Besides, I do not like the way all of you gang up on Vandeman. He is
purist admittedly, but we need his type to remind us of what would be ideal
in a perfect world.

I don't fault Mike for being an idealist or purist....but rather his
"science." If he wants to claim that the science supports him, he needs
to be solidly scientific...more so than those he is trying to "debunk."
Not answering a legitimate question (esp. those of a scientific
nature) or resorting to snubs ("Liar", "Did you say something" and so
forth) or personal attacks does not support his case.

Given the way he comes across, it is not the least bit surprising that
he has drawn a number of people to dispute his posts. The "ganging up"
has as much to do with his posts as it does the responses.

BS. Mountain bikers gang up on ANYONE who tells the truth about their
selfish, destructive sport. If you were interested in science, you
would address the science, instead of my image. You AREN'T!

Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come
from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as
"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
actively seek them out (troll for them).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would just like mountain bikers to stay on some kind of road as opposed to
any kind of trail. Here in the Upper Midwest there are literally thousands
of miles of gravel roads. The Black Hills of South Dakota is like this too.
It just seems to me that there is hardly ever any reason for mountain bikes
to be on hiking trails when there are so many unpaved roads for them to be
on.

Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.

That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.

No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.

Michael Halliwell

Michael Halliwell said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Michael Halliwell said:

Edward Dolan wrote:

>Yes, I am aware of where Curtiss is at, but it is just too much fun to kid
>him. Besides, I do not like the way all of you gang up on Vandeman. He is
>purist admittedly, but we need his type to remind us of what would be ideal
>in a perfect world.
>

I don't fault Mike for being an idealist or purist....but rather his
"science." If he wants to claim that the science supports him, he needs
to be solidly scientific...more so than those he is trying to "debunk."
Not answering a legitimate question (esp. those of a scientific
nature) or resorting to snubs ("Liar", "Did you say something" and so
forth) or personal attacks does not support his case.

Given the way he comes across, it is not the least bit surprising that
he has drawn a number of people to dispute his posts. The "ganging up"
has as much to do with his posts as it does the responses.

BS. Mountain bikers gang up on ANYONE who tells the truth about their
selfish, destructive sport. If you were interested in science, you
would address the science, instead of my image. You AREN'T!

Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come
from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as
"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
actively seek them out (troll for them).

Right. Blame the victim. It's easier than telling the truth.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I would just like mountain bikers to stay on some kind of road as opposed to
>any kind of trail. Here in the Upper Midwest there are literally thousands
>of miles of gravel roads. The Black Hills of South Dakota is like this too.
>It just seems to me that there is hardly ever any reason for mountain bikes
>to be on hiking trails when there are so many unpaved roads for them to be
>on.
>

Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.

That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.

No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.

Nobody is talking about "a few bad apples". In the case of mountain
bikers, it is EVERYONE. The effect of bikes has nothing to do with
whether they are bad apples or not.

Quoted message said:

Michael Halliwell

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come

Quoted message said:

from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as

Quoted message said:

"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
actively seek them out (troll for them).

Right. Blame the victim. It's easier than telling the truth.

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
>trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
>multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
>other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.

That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.

No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.

Nobody is talking about "a few bad apples". In the case of mountain
bikers, it is EVERYONE. The effect of bikes has nothing to do with
whether they are bad apples or not.

Thank you for making my point, Mike...you've never met me face to face,
seen the way I ride, where I ride, who I ride with or anything of the
sort, but you imply that I lie, then imply that because I ride a bike
off road I'm a "bad apple"...and you wonder why you attract the negative
responses that you post on yor webpage to bolster your "cause" and opinions.

Sheesh, when you become a real scientist, let me know, I might pay some
attention to you again.

Michael Halliwell

Michael Halliwell said:

Mike Vandeman said:

Quoted message said:

Mike, your inflamatory postings just contribute to the "ganging up."
When people address the science or your constantly re-posted "reviews",
you don't reply with solid scientific fact but rather claim they are
citing "junk science" because it doesn't reflect your opinions or come

Quoted message said:

from your webspace. More often than not, you revert to comments such as

Quoted message said:

"Lair!" or "Did you say something?" or 'that's not true...see my
webpage' or something similar. You are equally as responsible for the
types of responses you get because, at least from my perspective, you
actively seek them out (troll for them).

Right. Blame the victim. It's easier than telling the truth.

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Personally, I try to avoid the "hiking" trails and stick to the "bike"
>>trails. Up here, there are plenty of both. If I find myself on
>>multi-use trails, I make sure I'm courteous and share the trail with
>>other users, be they hiking, biking, horseback riding or using an ORV.
>
>
>That does nothing to help those driven away by the presence of bikes.

No, neither does the presence of beer bottles, illegal camp fires,
litter and so forth I have seen left by HIKERS on the trails. I try not
to let the occasional "bad apple" ruin my objectivity...but some people
find any excuse to blame someone else for their problems.

Nobody is talking about "a few bad apples". In the case of mountain
bikers, it is EVERYONE. The effect of bikes has nothing to do with
whether they are bad apples or not.

Thank you for making my point, Mike...you've never met me face to face,
seen the way I ride, where I ride, who I ride with or anything of the
sort, but you imply that I lie, then imply that because I ride a bike
off road I'm a "bad apple"...and you wonder why you attract the negative
responses that you post on yor webpage to bolster your "cause" and opinions.

Sheesh, when you become a real scientist, let me know, I might pay some
attention to you again.

I could care less whether you pay attention to me or not. Liars are
lower than dirt in my book. You give yourself too much importance.

Quoted message said:

Michael Halliwell

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Mike Vandeman said:

You give yourself too much importance.

Said the kettle to the pot...

Sheesh